Rata v. Lynch

Fourth Circuit

Rata v. Lynch

673 F. App'x 359

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 2017

DocketNo. 16-1292

StatusPublished

This text of 673 F. App'x 359 (Rata v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rata v. Lynch, 673 F. App'x 359 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Iana Rata, a native and citizen of Moldova, and her husband, derivative beneficiary Ara A. Tiratsvyan, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying Rata’s motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred. We have reviewed the administrative record and Rata’s claims, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 [360]*360F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Rata (B.I.A. Feb. 22, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Iana Rata, a native and citizen of Moldova, and her husband, derivative beneficiary Ara A. Tiratsvyan, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying Rata’s motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred. We have reviewed the administrative record and Rata’s claims, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 [360]*360F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Rata (B.I.A. Feb. 22, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 F. App'x 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rata-v-lynch-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack